Muon

You can check the basic facts about muon from Wikipedia. How does muon plays out in TOEBI which contains only one lepton family particle, electron? In general, contemporary particle physics makes the difference between leptons on how much their trajectories bend in a magnetic field, for example heavier particles' trajectories bend less.

According to experiments muon mass is approximately 206.768 times the electron mass. Another interpretation (based on TOEBI) is that muon is electron with reduced spinning frequency. Let's see how this interpretation plays out...

When electron interacts with a magnetic field the G factor of interacting particles is

G_{electron}=\frac{1}{2}f_{electron}^2 \ \mathrm{\frac{m^3}{kg}}

where f_{electron}\approx8.98755*10^{16} 1/s. Now Berry wrote

We separately consider an electron-electron pair, a muon-electron pair and a muon-muon pair, each of them with the same separation distance and anti-parallel spinning direction. Then we can cancel r^2 and compare magnitudes. Experimentally the forces are found to be the same, so according to Second Law of TOEBI we must have
(G_e+G_e)M_e^2=(G_\mu+G_e)M_\mu M_e=(G_\mu+G_\mu)M_\mu^2~\Leftrightarrow~2f_e^2=(f_\mu^2+f_e^2)\mu=2f_\mu^2\,\mu^2
where I have introduced the mass ratio \mu=M_\mu/M_e\approx 200.

First of all, I would like to have a reference which states that those forces are equal and how the measurements are done. But let's forget that for a moment. The most interesting interaction happens between electrons creating the magnetic field and muon particle, and the force between single electron and muon is

F=(G_{electron}+G_{muon})\frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2}\tag{1}

Now contemporary particle physics says that the muon mass is 206.768 times the electron mass, so what would be the reduced spinning frequency which will generate such a "mass"? In order to create 206.768 times greater mass illusion electron have to interact that much weaker which means that

\frac{G_{muon}}{G_{electron}}\approx1/206.768\tag{2}

which gives us

f_{muon}\approx\sqrt{1/206.768}f_{electron}\approx0.07f_{electron}\approx6.25*10^{15}\text{ 1/s}\tag{3}

Now, back to Berry's example. What kind of distance differences would give equal force measurements? Let's say that the distance between two electrons is 0.01 m, so we get force \approx6.7*10^{-23} N. So, what would be the distance between electron and muon in order to generate the exact same force? That's easy

6.7*10^{-23}\text{ N}=(G_{electron}+G_{muon})\frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2}\tag{4}

which gives r\approx 7*10^{-3} m and two muons would give r\approx7*10^{-4} m. According to Berry forces should be exactly the same at the same distance, so references are needed.

Or what about the size of muon atoms? According to mainstream physics, the muons (same attraction, higher mass) have to have smaller orbitals, in agreement with experiments. According to your ideas (lower attraction, same mass), though, the orbitals would have to be larger. Bummer!

What prevents electrons from crashing into nucleus? According to TOEBI, it's the repulsion generated by FTEP flux originated from spinning (proton) electrons (see chapter Equilibrium State from Atom Model and Relativity). Naturally the same applies in case of muons, however, due to smaller spinning frequency, muons are able to get closer to nucleus than electrons.

The muon mass does not only affect its trajectory in magnetic fields. For example, if Mμ=Me, how come after decay there is an electron left plus a lot of energy? Where was the energy stored before the decay? Maybe in the spinning? Nope, because according to you, fμ<fe. Bummer!

What happens (according to TOEBI) at the moment when muon decays? Obviously it gains back its original spinning frequency f_{electron} due to its interactions with other particles. Increased spinning frequency causes the particle accelerate which leads at the end neutrino generation. This last chapter is a bit lousy due to my lack of research, sorry about that.

Major Update

Due to major errors in Theory of Everything by Illusion paper I needed to make a major update to it. You can download it from the link on the right area. Major changes are...

  • Third law of TOEBI is dropped out as obsolete
  • Second law of TOEBI fixed (force calculations for elementary particles)
  • Gravitational constant is included as is

There is also fixed multiple smaller errors. Some parts were simply removed as being not relevant.  All of this made Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion outdated! Hopefully I'll manage to update that paper in near future as well.

Update: Introduction to Theory of Everything is also updated.

The Biggest Blunder in TOEBI

For multiple reasons I had this idea that gravitational constant G is easily calculated from object's spinning frequency f_{object}.

G_{object}= \frac{1}{2}f_{object}^2 \frac{m^3}{kg}\tag{1}

That doesn't work, as Berry has pointed out. Good old gravitational constant seems to be still valid in our solar system. However, rotation induced force generation still works in TOEBI. Good example is this experiment conducted with rotating shot put, I'm able to calculate generated forces with the second and third laws of TOEBI. Also (spinning) particle interactions can be calculated with those laws. So the question goes, what I have missed regarding gravitational interactions?

In TOEBI, gravitational interaction must emerge and be calculable from its hypotheses and laws. We have two observations

  1. Gravitational constant is valid
  2. Attractive force can be increased with significant rotation frequency (apparently Earth's rotation frequency is too small to increase attractive force)

With these building blocks I should be able to save my theory of everything... I have an idea already.

Mercury

This blog post is inspired by the conversation in The biggest blunder in physics? where Berry was grilling TOEBI like no tomorrow. Calculations made inside my head are not necessarily the most accurate ones so here I do the math in format of a blog post.

Basic facts are here:

  • G_{Mercury}\approx 1.96*10^{-14}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} if whole Mercury is spinning at the same rate.
  • G_{Sun}\approx 3.2*10^{-13}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} based on estimated total spinning frequency [1]
  • M_{Sun}\approx1.98*10^{30} kg (TOEBI agrees with this value)
  • M_{Mercury}\approx3.3022*10^{23} kg (current value)

Everything should match with the next equation (Newton vs. TOEBI's II Law

G\frac{M_{Sun}M_{Mercury}}{R^2}= (G_{Sun}+G_{Mercury})\frac{M_{Sun}X}{R^2}\tag{1}

hence X\approx6.5*10^{25} kg. Obviously such a value is pretty suspicious. Let's keep that in mind...

Berry also pointed out that g_{Mercury}\approx 3.7 m/s² and that value would give Mercury even higher mass in case of G_{Mercury}\approx 1.96*10^{-14}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2}. What's happening? There is two possible explanation, either TOEBI can't calculate Mercury's mass or Mercury's crust and core have a very different spinning frequencies.

Due to Mercury's size it's obvious that there is much smaller pressure inside Mercury caused by gravitational interaction. Smaller pressure makes these potentially very different spinning frequencies between the core and the crust plausible.  I wonder if this same explanation works with my Moon mass calculation...? The idea of very large spin frequency differences between a stellar object's core and crust didn't occurred to my mind earlier, shame on me.

At this point, I shall release Berry. I might continue with this post later on.

Ok then, what is the real G_{Mercury}? We can calculate it from equation (1) by substituting X with Mercury's mass, so we  get G_{Mercury}\approx6.64*10^{-11}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} . Total spinning frequency is hence 1.15*10^{-5} 1/s which means sidereal rotation period \approx 1.007 d.

Now gravitational acceleration on the surface is

G_{Mercury}\frac{M_{Mercury}}{R_{Mercury}}\approx3.68\text{ } \frac{m}{s^2} \tag{2}

[1] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1994ApJ...435..874J/0000878.000.html

Successes

This blog post was requested by dwarf... TOEBI's successes, here you go... In theory-wise, TOEBI has been very successful indeed. No matter what was the topic, I have managed to calculate it in TOEBI or at least give a reasonable explanation according to it. But when we talk about successes in broader sense there will be a wall of fog weakening my vision.

What do I know for sure? I do have few individual supporters, who are working in fields like engineering and physics. We don't have any collaborations ongoing but we do change some ideas every now and then and I get feedback from them. These people consider TOEBI as an interesting and new insight of reality.

Second group consists of physicists who are potentially interested in collaborating with me. At the moment, I'm having talks with some of these physicists in order to start experimenting my "antimatter" annihilation idea with solid hydrogen. But active experimental physicists are busy with their ongoing projects so I don't think that anything concrete will happen immediately. I'm also amazed how hard it is for those physicists to get their research ideas through the bureaucracy.

The last thing I know for sure is who has been downloading my papers, at least previously, because currently my paper links point directly to viXra.org. Here's few institutions based on my logs:

  • CERN
  • Fermilab
  • NASA
  • Harvard University
  • University of Oxford
  • University of Cambridge
  • Imam Hossein University (Iranian nuclear technology orientated university)
  • Aalto University (largest university in Finland)
  • U.S. Justice Department (God knows why!)
  • countless other smaller universities and research organisations / companies
  • and many more which has slipped through my random log auditing

Paper downloads might have been done by students in those institutions as well as researchers and like. Ok, maybe CERN, Fermilab, NASA, Imam Hossein University and U.S. Justice Department downloads are made by hardcore researchers and like only.

That's all I know about TOEBI's successes. Interesting to see what new successes will emerge in next couple of years.

Skipping Fusion Economy?

If we can build asteroid busting devices based on TOEBI's antimatter concept then we should pull off electric power production based on the same concept as well. At first I thought that such a thing is impossible due to technical difficulties, for example, how in Earth one can manage to maintain a sufficient annihilation level? And in controlled manner!

Obviously we need to have a core which heats up the water. Ok then, we annihilate a needed and safe amount of protons. We can't heat up the water too much at once, otherwise turbines and other accessories would get broken. So there must be a mechanism which enables more or less constant feeding of protons to be annihilated. But how such a mechanism could work? I mean,  inserting solid hydrogen ready to get annihilated inside hot water can't be the easiest task.

Maybe some kind of insulated rod (holding prepared solid hydrogen at the end) could be pushed into middle of the core and then blasted away...? Maybe... maybe. At the moment I can't imagine another way round. Man, I should have my own lab!

Anyway, presented idea for electric power production is extremely safe and very little toxic waste is produced. Actually, the amount of toxic waste depends entirely on design of the rods. There is no possibility for uncontrolled energy releasing because those rods must be inserted into the core. Even in the unfortunate case when the whole core would explode (for any reason) used material (small amounts of hydrogen) won't pose a serious hazard, it would just burn away.

Antimatter Based Application

I finally managed to put together the latest theoretical know-how concerning antimatter based high yield energy production. Without further due... check out Antimatter Bomb. The paper lays out the theoretical blueprint for antimatter based bomb, it presents needed core material (solid hydrogen), theoretical requirements and used method. The paper does not describe any technical requirements, engineering solutions and so on. Pulling off a technical solution take (most likely) several years, hence sooner we start the research then bigger are the chances for preventing surprise asteroids.

I regard my paper as informative as saying that by splitting Uranium-235 atoms with neutrons we can release energy, it's just theoretical knowledge. Of course antimatter based energy production as described in the paper is easier to accomplish than e.g. fission based energy production, but never the less, it's just theoretical knowledge, and on top of that, it's highly speculative paper!

I do hope that my paper generates some debate and possibly encourages some bold experimental particle physicists to give it a try. Let's hope for the best!

 

GRB Light Curves

For various reasons I suspect that gamma ray bursts are mainly "man-made". Obviously those civilizations which ignited a GRB and which were vanished at the event could have been most bizarre looking creatures but never the less, intelligent enough to trigger a GRB. Due to the nature of these GRBs I have called one as the Great Filter.

GRBs come in various durations and radiation signatures, so can they really be "man-made"? How can those short and hour lasting events be triggered by some intelligent civilization and what explains the detected duration variations?

Source: Wikipedia

Let's hypothesize that ignited GRB chain reaction proceeds with the speed of light. How long would it take in case of Earth (diameter \approx 12740 km)? It would take only \approx 0.04 seconds! Annihilating for example Moon would take \approx 0.01 seconds. Detected duration from billions of light years away would be even shorter than those theoretical time frames. Depending on the amount of surrounding matter and other factors involved in the annihilation process detected radiation peaks can be sharp and/or smooth.

How long it would take if we started a GRB here on Earth to annihilate both Earth and Moon? Well, it wouldn't take too long for sure... approximately 1.3 second! And it's radiation profile would include two radiation peaks. Interesting... let's stretch our imagination and say that we would manage to annihilate also Mars when it were pretty close to us, something like 5.6*10^{7} km away. In that unfortunate case the whole chain reaction would take \approx 187 seconds! (Including three peaks; two initial peaks would be very close to each other)

Different solar systems around the universe come in many different setups which can explain all kinds of GRB profiles. Why sometimes more than one stellar object is annihilated? It has to depend on the initial annihilating object. If a larger object is the ground zero then it's more likely to take a neighbouring stellar object within the chain reaction. But in case of smaller initially annihilating object or in case of a bigger distance between two neighbouring objects chances are that only one stellar object is annihilated. So it doesn't mean that in case of a GRB chain reaction the whole solar system will be wiped out, but it surely can.

In case of total annihilation of solar system, the expected time frame would be (in case of our solar system and Earth was the ground zero) something like 260 minutes... over four hours. This calculation surely makes one think.

 

Where Are The Results NASA? (Juno)

What a heck? It has been over year from the flyby but no results released by NASA. How hard that can be? Seriously. NASA could have put like a short tweet or something out for two weeks after the flyby... but nooo! I wonder why...?

Maybe those results are buried under somebody's backyard or something? Are those results classified for some reason? Anyway, my prediction 1.09 mm/s at perigee looks pretty strong, at least when I retrodict those previous flybys with my formula.

Update: I had a quite interesting tweet exchange with Mike McCulloch who told that he got confirmation from former NASA employee that there wasn't any anomalous velocity increase with Juno Earth flyby. On top of that, he got that information only a week after the flyby.

Weird part is that in AGU Fall Meeting 2013 there was an ePoster (which is now non-accessible, here's its abstract thou) which said that the data analysis is still ongoing. It included also a picture which kind of hinted that some kind of anomalous increase was measurable... pretty strange! On the other hand, Mike told that there is some "tension" regarding these flyby anomalies in NASA.

I'm puzzled! No other options than waiting and trying to probe more info from NASA.

Anomalous Spin-Spin Correlation

You can read more on the anomalous A_{NN} spin-spin correlation from here (chapter 3). What's up with that? Well, a lot, at least for TOEBI. Based on the experiments I can claim that proton annihilations in mass scale can't be done with proton beams. Most likely same applies to electron beams. Therefore the only viable option is the experiment (solid hydrogen based) described earlier. In future, I'll keep on pitching on that experiment.

But what happens in case of that anomalous spin-spin correlation? From TOEBI's point of view (PoV) things appear more clear than from QCD PoV. What prevents annihilation of colliding protons? In order to annihilate, colliding protons must gain close enough proximity, their spins must be antiparallel (normal to beam) with precision approach. How easy it that with proton beams? Not that easy for sure, firstly, getting perfectly polarized beams is next to impossible. Spin vectors (TOEBI defined) are not necessarily precisely aligned and even smallest deviation generates something else than pion production what we are looking for.

Protons moving near the speed of light has gained also increased spinning frequency (\approx 1.5 times the rest spinning frequency). Increased spinning frequency means that those three electrons (constructing proton) generate bigger FTEP flux around them, in other words, a bigger buffer between them and another particle(s). Increased buffer protects proton from too easy annihilation process in case of collision.

If proton spins are parallel then elastic scattering happens normally (with proper energy scale) as expected by TOEBI or QCD, if spins are antiparallel things go more complicated. Why's that? Antiparallel spins mean that contacting protons' electrons are physically spinning into opposite directions.

Antiparallel spins
Transverse Antiparallel Spin Polarizations

At close proximity these into opposite directions spinning electrons interact more massively than into same direction spinning electrons. When electrons spin into same direction generated FTEP (Force Transfer Ether Particle, the smallest particle) flux flows into same direction also, hence those interacting electrons scatter more easily away from each other. In case of opposite spinning directions (see picture), generated FTEP flux starts to build up between interacting electrons, which then causes more easily these electrons to change their spinning orientations towards (more dense local FTE) incoming particle, resulting inelastic collision (new particles are created by compressing FTEPs together, read more from TOEBI).

Asymmetry between the number of elastic scatterings between parallel and antiparallel spins is roughly 4:1 which is enormous amount and QCD is totally clueless about it. Can we derive that ratio from TOEBI? Good question... Let's say that almost every encounter between parallel spin protons experience elastic scattering and let's assume that protons with antiparallel spins experience inelastic scattering when at least one of their electrons collide heads on. Let's start counting...

Possible Collision Variations
Possible Collision Variations

We can find four different collision types. Those black balls in the picture remarks exactly intersecting colliding proton electrons (which in case of antiparallel spins means inelastic collision). When all three proton electrons hit head on, no matter what their spin directions are, there will be inelastic collision. Conclusion, for every single inelastic scattering of parallel spin protons there is four inelastic scatterings of antiparallel spin protons (1:4), so trivially, there will be four elastic scatterings of parallel spin protons per one elastic scattering of antiparallel spin protons (4:1).

Conclusion: No anomalous correlation according to TOEBI.